Content
88%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a strong, action-oriented skill: executable tool calls, a validated multi-step workflow, and a concrete worked example. The only notable gap is mild redundancy from restating the same steps across three sections.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and dense with no padding of concepts Claude already knows — token budgets (~150/300/500) and staleness handling are compact — but the same five-step sequence is restated across Workflow, Checklist, and the worked Example, a minor instance of over-explanation that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready MCP tool calls with exact syntax — 'query({search_query: "payment processing", repo: "my-app"})', 'context({name: "processPayment"})', resource URIs, and the exact re-analyze command 'node .gitnexus/run.cjs analyze' — covering common cases with real output examples. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear numbered sequence (list_repos → context → query → context → process) with explicit validation checkpoints (staleness check, pagination until 'hasMore is false', repo-binding before proceeding) and a feedback loop (re-analyze only when behind/diverged), plus a checklist and worked example. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clear sections (When to Use, Bind the repository, Workflow, Checklist, Resources, Tools, Example) with one-level resource references and no nested file chains, but it is a single ~100-line file slightly exceeding the simple-skill threshold, so structure is good rather than fully split. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |